MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411483948 · doi:10.1093/g3journal/jkaf133

Measuring genetic diversity of Texas bluegrass and allele sharing with Kentucky bluegrass interspecific hybrids using genome-wide markers

2025· article· en· W4411483948 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Boerman, Matthew D. Robbins, Ambika Chandra, Tom Brentano, B. Shaun Bushman

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyHybridInterspecific competitionBackcrossingPopulationContigGenetic diversityCultivarGenetic distanceGeneticsGenomeBotanyGenetic variationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kentucky bluegrass is an important cool-season turfgrass species. However, heat and drought tolerance is an issue. Interspecific hybridization with a related species, Texas bluegrass, is an approach used to improve heat and drought tolerance. We report herein a contig assembly and annotation of Texas bluegrass that was completed and used to measure the population structure of Texas bluegrass, interspecific lines between Texas and Kentucky bluegrass, and the percent allele sharing between advanced interspecific lines and cultivars to Texas bluegrass. The contig assembly was comprised of 367 contigs and spanned 6.6 Gb with 198,746 predicted gene models and an assembly and transcriptome completeness of over 97% as indicated by BUSCO orthologous gene alignment. It was used to call 14,504 high-quality SNPs. A principal component analysis showed separation of populations across the first 3 PCs, explaining 21.5, 11.1, and 5.4%, respectively, of the variation across the populations. Advanced interspecific lines and cultivars diverged from Texas bluegrass while sharing 62-74% of their alleles with Texas bluegrass. Interspecific Texas × Kentucky bluegrasses could be important for improving heat and drought tolerance among bluegrasses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207